COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

July 22, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 

and RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2021AP30 Cir. Ct. No. 2019SC3130

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

JOEL WINNIG,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

SHERAY WALLACE,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: 

PETER ANDERSON, Judge. Dismissed. 

¶1 KLOPPENBURG, J.1 The circuit court entered an order dismissing 

this small claims action brought by Joel Winnig against Sheray Wallace, “UPON 

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2019-20). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

(continued)
No. 2021AP30

2

AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES” and based on a “mutually satisfactory 

settlement.” Wallace appeals, seeking review of the court’s prior non-final rulings 

denying Wallace’s previous motions to dismiss. I conclude that this appeal is 

moot and that the interest of judicial economy would not be served by rendering 

the advisory opinion that Wallace seeks. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as 

moot.

2

¶2 Winnig leased an apartment to Wallace from December 2009 to 

March 2015. In May 2019, Winnig filed a small claims complaint against Wallace 

seeking unpaid rent and interest. A court commissioner granted Wallace’s motion 

to dismiss Winnig’s claims against Wallace as barred by the doctrines of laches 

and equitable estoppel. Winnig filed a demand for a trial before the circuit court, 

which he titled “request for hearing de novo.”3

¶3 Over the course of several proceedings in the circuit court, Wallace 

twice moved the court to dismiss the complaint. First, Wallace moved to dismiss

the complaint on the basis that the court had lost competency to proceed because 

 

In an order dated July 16, 2021, this court denied Wallace’s motion to convert this appeal 

to a three-judge panel.

2

 After Wallace filed her notice of appeal, this court issued an order dated March 12, 

2021, directing the parties to address, among other issues, whether the appeal is moot based on 

the circuit court’s order of dismissal. I acknowledge Wallace’s thorough briefing of the mootness 

issue as directed. 

Winnig has failed to file a brief in this appeal, despite this court’s order of June 23, 2021, 

in which we cautioned that this failure tacitly concedes the issues raised by Wallace. Winnig did 

file a four page “memorandum,” which I have not considered because it does not comply with the 

rules of appellate procedure and was filed well after the deadline for filing the response brief had 

passed.

3

 Wallace does not contend that the difference in nomenclature is of any significance to 

the issues she raises on appeal.
No. 2021AP30

3

Winnig served his demand for trial through the circuit court electronic filing 

system but failed to mail the demand as required by WIS. STAT. § 799.207(3)(c) 

(“the demand for trial must be filed with the court and mailed to the other parties 

within 10 days from the date of an oral decision or 15 days from the date of 

mailing of a written decision. Mailing of the notice and proof of such mailing is 

the responsibility of the party seeking review.”). The court denied Wallace’s 

motion, ruling that Winnig was not required to comply with the small claims 

statute requiring mailing because the electronic filing statute (WIS. STAT.

§ 801.18) had changed the methods of service for all civil cases where, as here, the 

parties were registered users of the electronic filing system.

4

 

¶4 Second, Wallace moved to dismiss the complaint based on Winnig’s

asserted failure to have properly served Wallace with the summons and complaint.

The circuit court denied Wallace’s motion, ruling that, while Wallace had orally 

raised the defense of failure to serve at the hearing before the court commissioner, 

she had under WIS. STAT. § 802.06(8) waived the defense by having first 

submitted a written answer in which that defense was not raised.

 

4

 Wallace filed a petition in this court seeking leave to appeal the circuit court’s non-final 

order denying her motion to dismiss, and this court denied the petition. 

“‘Electronic filing system’ means an internet-accessible system established by the 

director for the purpose of filing documents with a circuit court, automatically integrating them 

into the court case management system, and electronically serving them on the parties.” WIS.

STAT. § 801.18(1)(e). A “user” means “an individual who has registered to use the electronic 

filing system.” Sec. 801.18(1)(n). Licensed Wisconsin attorneys must register to use the 

electronic filing system prior to filing documents in the circuit court. Sec. 801.18(3)(a). 

When a clerk of court files a document submitted by a user in a particular case, “the 

electronic filing system shall issue a confirmation to serve as proof of filing. When personal 

service is not required, the confirmation shall also serve as proof of service on the other users in 

the case.” Sec. 801.18(4)(c).
No. 2021AP30

4

¶5 After additional proceedings in the circuit court, on September 30, 

2020, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal and on October 1, 2020, the circuit 

court issued an order of dismissal based on the parties’ stipulation. 

¶6 Wallace appeals, seeking review of the circuit court’s rulings 

denying her motions to dismiss. 

¶7 Wallace concedes that this appeal is moot because this case “has 

been settled” by the stipulated dismissal of the complaint and “the controversy in 

this case is over.” Our supreme court has explained the doctrine of mootness thus:

Mootness is a doctrine of judicial restraint. An 

issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical 

effect on the underlying controversy. Because moot issues 

do not affect a live controversy, this court generally 

declines to reach them. But we may overlook mootness if 

the issue falls within one of five exceptions: (1) the issue is 

of great public importance; (2) the issue involves the 

constitutionality of a statute; (3) the issue arises often and a 

decision from this court is essential; (4) the issue is likely 

to recur and must be resolved to avoid uncertainty; or 

(5) the issue is likely of repetition and evades review.

Marathon County v. D.K., 2020 WI 8, ¶19, 390 Wis. 2d 50, 936 N.W.2d 901 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). 

¶8 Wallace argues that this court should overlook mootness in this case 

and reach the merits of the two issues she raises: (1) whether Winnig was required 

to mail his demand for trial instead of serving the demand through the electronic 

filing system; and (2) whether Wallace waived the defense of failure to serve the 

summons and complaint by raising it orally in a hearing before the court 

commissioner after she had filed a written answer that did not raise that defense. 

¶9 Wallace argues that these two issues fall within several exceptions to 

the mootness doctrine in that they are of great public importance, are likely to 
No. 2021AP30

5

recur, and are likely of repetition and to evade review. However, much of 

Wallace’s argument regarding the assertedly widespread nature of both issues 

refers to situations in which one of the parties is not represented or has not 

registered as a user of the electronic filing system. This case is not an appropriate 

vehicle for resolving potential legal issues that may arise in such a situation 

because the parties here were both represented and were registered users of the 

electronic filing system.

¶10 I conclude that Wallace fails to show that the “interest of judicial 

economy,” State ex rel. La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Ct. for La Crosse Cnty., 

115 Wis. 2d 220, 228, 340 N.W.2d 460 (1983), would be served by rendering the

advisory opinion that she requests in this moot appeal. See Walt v. City of 

Brookfield, 2015 WI App 3, ¶35, 359 Wis. 2d 541, 859 N.W.2d 115 (An opinion 

on a moot issue amounts to an advisory opinion and is an “inefficient use of 

judicial resources.”).

By the Court.—Appeal dismissed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.